https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73515 Liquid chlorine and dry chlorine, though classified under the same tariff heading, were not comparable goods for central excise valuation because tariff classification alone did not establish valuation comparability and the two forms were treated differently for tariff value purposes. For captively consumed dry chlorine, valuation had first to be attempted under Rule 6(b)(i) on the basis of comparable goods; as no true comparable was shown, the residual cost-based method under Rule 6(b)(ii), including normal profit, had to apply. The valuation based on liquid chlorine's sale price was therefore unsustainable and the assessable value was remitted for fresh determination on the cost method. en-us Mon, 15 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:14:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73515 Liquid chlorine and dry chlorine, though classified under the same tariff heading, were not comparable goods for central excise valuation because tariff classification alone did not establish valuation comparability and the two forms were treated differently for tariff value purposes. For captively consumed dry chlorine, valuation had first to be attempted under Rule 6(b)(i) on the basis of comparable goods; as no true comparable was shown, the residual cost-based method under Rule 6(b)(ii), including normal profit, had to apply. The valuation based on liquid chlorine's sale price was therefore unsustainable and the assessable value was remitted for fresh determination on the cost method. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73515